Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
It's a commonly held grudge of listeners who are no longer pop's core demographic that the music of the moment is not what it once was [...] But [what] happens when science attempts to prove these claims? Here are some studies that suggest your parents might have been having a lot more pop fun than you are...
[...] This followed a similar study by a team from the Spanish National Research Council, lead by artificial intelligence specialist Joan SerrĂ , who examined nearly half a million pop songs over a similar period (in this case 1955-2010), and looked at their tonal, melodic and lyrical content. They concluded that pop has become melodically less complex, using fewer chord changes, and that pop recordings are mastered to sound consistently louder (and therefore less dynamic) at a rate of around one decibel every eight years.
[...] The Lempel-Ziv algorithm is a lossless way to compress data, by taking out repetitions, and Morris used it as a tool to examine 15,000 songs from the Billboard Hot 100 from 1958 to 2014, reducing their lyrics down to their smallest size without losing any data, and comparing their relative sizes. He found two very interesting things. The first was that in every year of study, the songs that reached the Top 10 were more repetitive than their competition. The second is that pop has become more repetitive over time, as Morris points out: "2014 is the most repetitive year on record. An average song from this year compresses 22% more efficiently than one from 1960."
Of course, none of this means that pop songs are any less fun. They may be slower and sadder than before, but if pop songs are now simpler and louder and more repetitive than they used to be, that might make up for it. In fact, a 2011 report called Music and Emotions in the Brain: Familiarity Matters, compiled by a team led by Carlos Silva Pereira suggests that the human brain enjoys knowing what is coming next in music. Having conducted fMRI scans on people listening to songs, the report concludes that, "Familiarity seems to be a crucial factor in making the listeners emotionally engaged with music."
Source: Has pop music lost its fun?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @02:58PM (3 children)
(extract the essence and turn a blind eye to his lack of writing clarity) ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:06PM (2 children)
#4 isn't really right. 80% of the hits from the last couple decades come from just two writers, so to suggest that anybody can write this dribble is suspect. It sounds like anybody could write it, but in practice it's a small number of writers responsible for most of the crud.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:48PM (1 child)
I agree, and will expand by refuting that bands based on image are new to 2018. New Kids On The Block was openly admitted to being a manufactured phenomenon. [wikipedia.org] Going back another couple of decades, The Monkees were hired first for their looks and acting ability, and and their musical abilities second. It wasn't until their TV show started losing popularity that they were able to take control of the way their music was written and produced.
Record companies want to make money. It's much simpler to buy songs from a competent songwriter and find a pretty face to serve as the brand to sell. The musician community recognizes this all to well, as shown by the following comment from Garth Brooks in December 2017 about playing 7 nights in Nashville:
Music popularity has much more to do with marketing than with aptitude or talent; I don't think this has changed in the last 40 years or so.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:12PM
> New Kids On The Block was openly admitted to being a manufactured phenomenon.
see The Monkeys (appeared shortly after the British invasion got going) - also a manufactured phenomenon.